HAMMER: Roberts And Kavanaugh’s Death Penalty Betrayal Again Shows Why Conservatives Never Win The L

[XenaLee]

This is chilling. 

Won't you please tell me again the story about how conservatives respecting all life is a cornerstone of their political philosophy.

Their political philosophy?   I have to wonder whenever someone makes a comment like that... referring to conservatives as "them, they, their, etc." vs. "us, we". 

You sound like you don't relate to conservatives.... or don't identify as a conservative.  If that's the case...

then what do you identify as?

[truth_seeker]

But conservatives do win. So the title Is flawed to start.

 

[TomSea]

There are only a certain number of states that use the death penalty with any regularity. This doesn't seem like the biggest decision and Kavanaugh's hands seem tied anyway, in that the GOP Senators did not stick together.

[Absalom]

Or maybe the time has just come to admit that the death penalty is a barbarity that doesn’t belong in a civilized society.

------------------------------
The foundation that sustained culture/society from earliest days, in the Fertile Crescent,
was Natural Law.
Consider the Rule; Man is not allowed to kill and its contrary; Man is allowed to kill.
Which permits civilization to nurture, to create and to develop?????
Ancient Greece and Rome treated violation of Natural Law w/death, both as lesson and punishment.
But we, who assert we are the greatest, are consumed by compassion, piety and sanctimony
and insist that violation of the Natural Law is too mean.
They survived/ thrived for 13 centuries and in the process founded Western Civilization,
the legacy/heritage that sustains us.
So who is right???????????????????????

[berdie]

It ain't about punishment @berdie ... it is about attrition and deterrence.

'Punishment' is vengeance. I don't care what he did, or how he did it, put a cap in his ass and be done with it. Take his air and let his smoke out. fini.

I see what you are saying @roamer_1 .  But I read what some of these creeps do...and your way is way too easy. In your way, I would have to dig them up and kill them again.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Their political philosophy? 

This post is what I found chilling @XenaLee :

Unintended collateral damage. Grievous though it is, I can live with that. Restore the man's name, take care of his widow, and do better next time.

I think it's fair to ask where this "collateral damage"  BS fits in the conservative political philosophy.  I'd always believed respect for all life was fundamental.

[Smokin Joe]

I see what you are saying @roamer_1 .  But I read what some of these creeps do...and your way is way too easy. In your way, I would have to dig them up and kill them again.

I appreciate that sentiment, but the survivors and surviving victims get one thing putting someone behind bars does not give. For those who were hurt (often an inadequate word to describe all the ramifications for a surviving victim or relative), so long as that offender lives and even after, they will be haunted by those moments or the thought of what their loved one endured before they died.

They get closure. The opportunity to work toward being able to sleep at night knowing that person will NEVER be behind them in the night, harm them or their loved ones, or be looking in their windows, or lurking in the darkness. It's done.

Then, for those who live, the healing can begin.

[TomSea]

What percentage of murderers are executed? I can understand the revulsion against some killing, but in the end killing is killing,  so, it's debatable about whether it is equitably done.

[Smokin Joe]

This post is what I found chilling @XenaLee :

I think it's fair to ask where this "collateral damage"  BS fits in the conservative political philosophy.  I'd always believed respect for all life was fundamental.

Where was the respect for the life of the victim who was filleted, butchered, brutally raped and strangled, eviscerated, or simply shot, execution style?

I believe there can be no shadow of doubt that the offender committed the crime, That the evidence must be untainted, and that every opportunity to present a defense should be present and utilized, and the conviction sure, beyond a reasonable doubt.

That said, would you keep a rabid dog alive, or would you finish it off? You wouldn't take a chance on it infecting others, you wouldn't release it at the dog park. Why? Not out of respect for the sick dog, but out of respect for the lives of those other dogs who play well with others. Dogs which attack and maul or kill kids are treated the same as the rabid ones, even though they aren't suffering from Rabies.

I know we are talking about humans, here, but there is a parallel. We even allow for sickness (mental illness) in most cases, we allow for intoxication, for passion, for the unplanned homicide, for accidents, and we allow self defense.

For those things we don't generally administer the death penalty. It is reserved for the nastiest of the nasty. Each crime a crime against humanity, committed with malice, with planning, without regard for the life of the victim(s), and out of respect for the rest of the lives out there, we are willing to stop one life from continuing to be a threat, in custody or out. That is why the death penalty is reserved for those crimes which are the worst, out of respect for life, the lives of all those who were potential victims, who survived the crime, or who mourn someone who didn't. Those lives, those innocent lives, count too.

[TomSea]

This guy executed in the past month was on death row for over 20 years, something like 23, 24... so, those victims have to wait a long time for that justice.

In the end, how many people are executed a year? It's a pretty low number like, I'd guess, 25. But even if we doubled it or tripled that number, 50 or 75.

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/many-people-murdered-day-united-states-4ce42c4182d89232

2016, 15, 696 murders in the US, so, though I'm not against the death penalty, it certainly takes a long time to execute and the numbers of those actually put to death is tiny.

[Bill Cipher]

------------------------------
The foundation that sustained culture/society from earliest days, in the Fertile Crescent,
was Natural Law.
Consider the Rule; Man is not allowed to kill and its contrary; Man is allowed to kill.
Which permits civilization to nurture, to create and to develop?????
Ancient Greece and Rome treated violation of Natural Law w/death, both as lesson and punishment.
But we, who assert we are the greatest, are consumed by compassion, piety and sanctimony
and insist that violation of the Natural Law is too mean.
They survived/ thrived for 13 centuries and in the process founded Western Civilization,
the legacy/heritage that sustains us.
So who is right???????????????????????

Uh-huh.  Watch Monty Python much?

[XenaLee]

This post is what I found chilling @XenaLee :

Nice dodge = you didn't answer my question.   Which.... come to think of it...

the no-answer probably answers my question.

Thanks.   

[aligncare]

@Smokin Joe

But crime victims are killed by the heinous act of an individual. The death sentence is an act carried out by the state. Seems to me there’s a difference.

We can’t anticipate nor rationalize random violence. But, we can control what we as a state will accept as humane treatment for the guilty.

Islamists accept beheadings with the head placed on a pike in the public square. A civil society shouldn’t ever accept such a obscene act.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Nice dodge = you didn't answer my question.   Which.... come to think of it... the no-answer probably answers my question.

Thanks.    

I'm not dodging anything @XenaLee  and I don't think this is a laughing matter.

A poster said he was okay with "collateral damage" (the state killing an innocent man) so long as we restore the man's good name and take care of the widow. 

My question to you is:  How does this complete disregard for human life fit into the conservative political philosophy --- the cornerstone that says we conservatives stand for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

How does being okay with the death of an innocent at the hands of the State fit conservative first principles?

[XenaLee]

I'm not dodging anything @XenaLee  and I don't think this is a laughing matter.

A poster said he was okay with "collateral damage" (the state killing an innocent man) so long as we restore the man's good name and take care of the widow. 

My question to you is:  How does this complete disregard for human life fit into the conservative political philosophy --- the cornerstone that says we conservatives stand for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

How does being okay with the death of an innocent at the hands of the State fit conservative first principles?

I'm not talking about any other member here or any other post.  I noted your comment and I asked a question re: it.  You haven't answered that question. 

Do you or do you not.... call or consider yourself a conservative?   If so, you can answer your own question.   If not....

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

But crime victims are killed by the heinous act of an individual. The death sentence is an act carried out by the state. Seems to me there’s a difference.

We can’t anticipate nor rationalize random violence. But, we can control what we as a state will accept as humane treatment for the guilty.

Islamists accept beheadings with the head placed on a pike in the public square. A civil society shouldn’t ever accept such a obscene act.

The obscene act is not giving the victims (who lived) and the relatives of those who did not the closure that there is no way this criminal will ever again perform their particular acts on anyone. You speak of humane treatment, but those who perpetrate such crimes gave none. Their individual acts were not "random" like some statistic, but commonly very personal, up close, premeditated, and often brutal beyond description.
Those acts not only affected the victims directly, but everyone who knew them, indirectly.

It really hasn't been that long since we had public executions, right here in the US. The Lincoln Conspirators, including a lady (Mary Surratt) who ran a boarding house were hanged in full view of those in attendance. While their alleged conspiracy was noteworthy, none of them actually killed anyone.

Yet, here you are, arguing for mollycoddling serial killers, people who are predators, who not only killed their prey, but sometimes ate them. Remarkable.



I have real trouble with that cognitive disconnect involved in arguing for leniency for individuals guilty of horrible crimes in a society that slaughters thousands a day who are innocent beyond any reasonable doubt. Electrocute/hang/gas/shoot/inject the b@stards, after they have been found guilty, of course.

Let's not reserve dismemberment, poisoning, and having their brains sucked out for the innocent.

We're more "humane" to axe murderers.

[TomSea]

@Smokin Joe

But crime victims are killed by the heinous act of an individual. The death sentence is an act carried out by the state. Seems to me there’s a difference.

We can’t anticipate nor rationalize random violence. But, we can control what we as a state will accept as humane treatment for the guilty.

Islamists accept beheadings with the head placed on a pike in the public square. A civil society shouldn’t ever accept such a obscene act.

Justice is not if there are 16,000 murders a year but only 25 executions a year, a lot of these people are on death row for 20 years with appeals... so closure for the victims? I'm not so sure about.

There are heinous murders AND multiple murders which would seem to be worthy of the death penalty,  this guy in Oklahoma killed a nice young teenage girl by burying her alive. How deranged is that?

Yet, at the same time, is this killing more than if someone robs the convenience store and kills the clerk?

I just don't know what the difference is and besides that, I know of one of the cases where someone was executed for killing a convenience store clerk. Maybe we have 16,000 murders a year but a fair percent of them are unsolved. Still.

[TomSea]

I'm not talking about any other member here or any other post.  I noted your comment and I asked a question re: it.  You haven't answered that question. 

Do you or do you not.... call or consider yourself a conservative?   If so, you can answer your own question.   If not....

Some pro-lifers see all life as being worthy of protection. I'm sure one could find Biblical quotes on these kinds of things too.

Some pro-lifers feel they need to be consistent, respecting life in the womb and respecting it even in these hard cases.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'm not talking about any other member here or any other post.  I noted your comment and I asked a question re: it.  You haven't answered that question. 

Do you or do you not.... call or consider yourself a conservative?   If so, you can answer your own question.   If not....

Of course @XenaLee , which is why I'd like to know if being dismissive about the killing of an innocent by the state is something we now subscribe to (as the poster does).  If so, how do we reconcile this with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This is a rather straight forward question.  So if you don't know or don't care, just say so or walk away from my post and we'll let it be. But there's no need to engage in this useless back and forth any further.

Thanks.

[TomSea]

Drunk drivers, those who have killed while distracted by texting while driving. Some of these irresponsible acts, maybe they don't warrant the death penalty but these kinds of sentences are often very lenient. I'm not sure if they should be, they still killed someone.

Victims don't get that much closure if they are waiting up to over 20 years to see justice done.  It almost seems like it would be such a burden.

The good book says to forgive, sometimes, you see stories where people forgive someone who murdered a family member. I've seen that on the 700 club.

[Absalom]

Uh-huh.  Watch Monty Python much?

--------------------------------
Well you ginned up 4 pages of argy bargy; not too
shabby for someone needy of attention, given this
brainless and unsupported assertion.
Obviously you have the rag on about capital punishment
as some sort of crime against humanity, like infanticide.
Suggest those w/contentious contrarian perspectives
lead w/their available brains rather than their rectums and
stuff the buffoonish one liners.

[XenaLee]

Of course @XenaLee , which is why I'd like to know if being dismissive about the killing of an innocent by the state is something we now subscribe to (as the poster does).  If so, how do we reconcile this with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This is a rather straight forward question.  So if you don't know or don't care, just say so or walk away from my post and we'll let it be. But there's no need to engage in this useless back and forth any further.

Thanks.

Lol!   Your pointed refusal to say that you're a conservative (as if conservatives are somehow bad...?) speaks VOLUMES, RIV.  It's pretty funny.  And for that I thank you (I needed that laugh).  I guess the only question that remains is...

what are you?   

[Smokin Joe]

Justice is not if there are 16,000 murders a year but only 25 executions a year, a lot of these people are on death row for 20 years with appeals... so closure for the victims? I'm not so sure about.

There are heinous murders AND multiple murders which would seem to be worthy of the death penalty,  this guy in Oklahoma killed a nice young teenage girl by burying her alive. How deranged is that?

Yet, at the same time, is this killing more than if someone robs the convenience store and kills the clerk?

I just don't know what the difference is and besides that, I know of one of the cases where someone was executed for killing a convenience store clerk. Maybe we have 16,000 murders a year but a fair percent of them are unsolved. Still.

Some guy goes in the convenience store to rob it, likely expecting no resistance. Discharging the firearm may even be unintentional, a result of a finger on the trigger and adrenaline. Or it may have been a cold, premeditated act, to exact vengeance on the clerk for some reason, wholly unnecessary otherwise. That was for the jury to decide, and the execution may send a message to others who might consider doing the same.

Contrast that with a guy who cruises the junior high, who picks out his victim, who has plans for her, who has his way with her, who kills her, not in the heat of passion, but slowly, deliberately, by burying her alive.

That criminal is a cold blooded predator, someone who used their abilities to plan and reason to select a victim, to carry out a horrible crime, who knew full well the effects of their actions well in time to stop, but didn't.
That act of killing was part and parcel of the intent, an intimate part of the crime, an intentional outcome planned for in advance. There are even sicker examples out there, Tom. 

If you go digging for Biblical quotes, you might be disappointed. Among other things, the penalty of death was for Murder, Adultery, Bestiality, Rape of a betrothed virgin, and Male-male sexual intercourse.

But now, I must ask you, too, a question which no one has answered. If you think capital punishment is unacceptable, how would you have dealt with those condemned at The Nuremberg Trials?

[TomSea]

Some guy goes in the convenience store to rob it, likely expecting no resistance. Discharging the firearm may even be unintentional, a result of a finger on the trigger and adrenaline. Or it may have been a cold, premeditated act, to exact vengeance on the clerk for some reason, wholly unnecessary otherwise. That was for the jury to decide, and the execution may send a message to others who might consider doing the same.

Contrast that with a guy who cruises the junior high, who picks out his victim, who has plans for her, who has his way with her, who kills her, not in the heat of passion, but slowly, deliberately, by burying her alive.

That criminal is a cold blooded predator, someone who used their abilities to plan and reason to select a victim, to carry out a horrible crime, who knew full well the effects of their actions well in time to stop, but didn't.
That act of killing was part and parcel of the intent, an intimate part of the crime, an intentional outcome planned for in advance. There are even sicker examples out there, Tom. 

If you go digging for Biblical quotes, you might be disappointed. Among other things, the penalty of death was for Murder, Adultery, Bestiality, Rape of a betrothed virgin, and Male-male sexual intercourse.

But now, I must ask you, too, a question which no one has answered. If you think capital punishment is unacceptable, how would you have dealt with those condemned at The Nuremberg Trials?

Nuremberg is international law.

Even if a pervert kills someone heinously, what if you have some guy who kills two people in a street robbery? How about in a gangland execution?  Kills a clerk in a hotel robbery? How are these less worthy of the death penalty?

I will skip the Bible part as this is not a religious forum and it was my error to bring that up.

[TomSea]

16,000 murders for 2016 was posted, this year, 29 people scheduled to be executed. Is this justice? I'm not so sure about it. See the stats here:

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/upcoming-executions#year2019